Falsification

[Nessie]

How can history be falsified? History is determined by evidence and it is that evidence which can be falsified.

A document can be falsified, with evidence it is a fake, such as the Lachout document. Or, with evidence to prove the information it contains is false or mistaken, such as the World Almanac on the Jewish population before and after the war.

An eyewitness can be falsified with evidence they did not see what they claimed they saw. Or that they were not in the place they claimed to be. Or with corroborating evidence that proves what they claim bears little to no resemblance to what actually took place. Eyewitness can be partially falsified, as in part of what they claim is evidenced to be true, or correct or a good recollection of events and part is wrong, mistaken or even a lie. Pretty much every single eyewitness to gassings and shootings can be partially falsified, as it is likely they at least made mistakes, when recalling what they saw.

A photo can be falsified, by proving it is manipulated, such as the photo of the body being hung off a tank barrel, or the painfully thin barracks inmates. It could also be shown to not be what it is claimed to be, such as the photo of smoke at TII, which has been claimed to be of corpses being burned, rather than when the rebellion broke out.

Forensic and archaeological evidence can be falsified by evidence its results are wrong. For example, Richard Krege's TII GPR survey and Leuchter's testing of samples from the Krema walls. Often the test results are disputed, as some would argue Green and Marchiewicz are wrong about the chemistry. Falsification can be disputed. One man's accurate test results can be another's total fabrication.

Physical evidence can be falsified by evidence it is not from where it is claimed to have come from, or it was not there at the time claimed, or it has been fabricated and it is fake. For example, in 2011 it was announced that part of a gas mask, a shower head and a vent had been found in the ruins of Krema II, during work to stop it from flooding. If evidence came to light that the objects had been made elsewhere and planted in the ruins, those objects would be falsified.

Circumstantial evidence, by its nature of being evidence from a source type above, can be falsified as described above. For example, the document recording shower fittings inside the Krema can be falsified as other documents can be. That document can be disputed, as in shown to not be evidence of gassings, but instead it is evidence of showering. Circumstantial evidence is normally subject to dispute, a different interpretation, rather than being falsified.

That leads on to how can a historical event be falsified? Sanity Check, gives the following example;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=21455#p21455

How do you 'falsify' this newspaper story? Is it a 'scientific theory' that Oswald Mosley spoke at a public meeting in Exeter in December 1933? Or is it just a historical event, an episode in the life of Mosley and the existence of the BUF in public life from 1932-1940? It is certainly documented in this newspaper.

Ways to falsify that story would be to check with the venue staff and did they see Mosley speak that night? Could it be the date can be falsified, as in it was in fact November 1933? Or, ask Mosley, and see what he has to say and can he provide the names of others who were there?

That would be a way the gassing claims about the Kremas could be falsified. Ask the camp staff, who worked at the Kremas, what happened? Look for documents to see if they confirm or not the gassing claims. Examine the buildings, to see if there are any physical signs they were used for gassings.

Claims about historical events cannot be falsified, by arguing they were not possible, when they could have happened. Such claims can be falsified, if they cannot have happened. Or, there is part falsification. For example, a claim that 200,000 people saw the Beatles in the Cavern at their first gig there. That is not possible due to the size of the place, but it does not mean that the claim the Beatles played the Cavern has been falsified, as they, venue staff, photos and recordings prove they played there. It is only the size of the crowd that has been falsified. A claim that the British fired rockets at Berlin in 1945, can be falsified by the lack of any evidence that happened and the lack of technological knowhow. That the Nazis fired rockets at London, is proven by evidence from multiple sources and their technological knowhow. However, a claim that a rocket carried a nuclear warhead, can be falsified due to the lack of knowhow. When it comes to the gas chambers, they were well within Nazi technological capabilities. It cannot be successfully claimed they were not possible. To falsify the gas chambers, would need evidence they did not happen, from people who were there, documents or other evidence.

With regard to the eyewitnesses, to falsify the gas chambers, either find Krema staff who said there were no gas chambers and what they were used for, or prove the eyewitness lied about gassings. Such proof does not come from arguing what they describe is physically impossible, when it was a physical possibility, as shown by the example of the Beatles playing the Cavern. It does not matter if an eyewitness describes a crowd far too large for the venue, or they get the date wrong for the gig. It is physically possible for the Beatles, a band in Liverpool in the 1960s, to have played the main venue in the city and it is well evidenced they played there. Eyewitness can make all sorts of mistakes about the gig, that does not falsify it.

[Nessie]

The career and work of the Beatles, is being used as an analogy regarding the falsification of the Holocaust. Many revisionists accept large parts of the Holocaust narrative, the arrests, camps, forced labour, disease and shootings. It is the part about mass gassing that they deny happened. That is like accepting a large part of the career and work of the Beatles took place, but they did not write, record and perform the album St Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. For many, it is the seminal work of the Beatles, their most familiar body of music. To deny it, would be to remove a large part of what is, what identifies the Beatles.

To falsify it, would need admissions from John, Paul, George and Ringo, along with testimony from recording studio staff and the mystery musicians who were responsible for writing and recording it. Even then, with that volume of corroborating evidence proving it was not a Beatles album, many would refuse to believe, as it is so associated with them. Many people have 'Beatlemania', and they, in particular, would struggle to let go of a core belief.

[Callafangers]

Holy smokes. I appear to have found the crux of the exterminationist misunderstanding in the entire Holocaust debate. Nessie, just like SC/Terry, cannot seem to wrap his head around falsification.

The falsification principle requires hypothetical consideration of what if the claim were false. And only if it could be proven false in this way, does the claim itself hold up as scientific.

Thus, none of your own exposition on this topic -- just like none of SC's -- is at all relevant nor meaningful.

Any claim or prediction of the 'Holocaust' can be subjected to Popper's falsification principle. And almost all such claims fail the test. Even though some may be theoretically falsifiable (e.g. that there are a million Jews underneath Treblinka, which could be tested via excavation/archaeology), these are not falsifiable in-practice due to anti-denial laws and policies.

[Nessie]

Holy smokes. I appear to have found the crux of the exterminationist misunderstanding in the entire Holocaust debate. Nessie, just like SC/Terry, cannot seem to wrap his head around falsification.

The falsification principle requires hypothetical consideration of what if the claim were false. And only if it could be proven false in this way, does the claim itself hold up as scientific.

I get that, which is why I talked about claims that are falsifiable and claims that are disputed. I gave examples of both.

Thus, none of your own exposition on this topic -- just like none of SC's -- is at all relevant nor meaningful.

Any claim or prediction of the 'Holocaust' can be subjected to Popper's falsification principle. And almost all such claims fail the test. Even though some may be theoretically falsifiable (e.g. that there are a million Jews underneath Treblinka, which could be tested via excavation/archaeology), these are not falsifiable in-practice due to anti-denial laws and policies.

The war crimes and historical investigations did test the claims about TII, to see if they could be verified. That is why site examinations were conducted, witnesses interviewed and documentary evidence traced. TII as a death camp, could have been falsified by those investigations, if they found little in the way of buried remains, those who worked inside the camp all denied it had gas chambers and records were found of mass transports back out of the camp. Anti-denial laws and policies do not prevent the tracing and gathering of evidence and it is evidence that determines if an event is falsifiable.

There were camps where claims about gas chambers were falsified, such as at Bergen-Belsen. The staff there denied the camp had gas chambers, no trace of gas chambers were found and camp documents do not show mass arrivals and then disappearance. The circumstances around the operation of the camp, as a labour and then holding camp, do not fit a gassing operation taking place there. The gas chambers at Dachau have been falsified as being used for mass gassings. The evidencing process, that proves no gas chambers, does not fall foul of any denial laws or policies. No one got punished for proving no mass gassing at those camps.

You said in the now meandering thread "Where are the Goalposts?"

Debbie Lipstadt says: "My friend Shlomo's missing family was gassed and then buried at Treblinka!"

This claim is entirely unfalsifiable. There is no conceivable path to demonstrate it conclusively as false, even if it truly is.

I disagree, that claim is entirely unfalsifiable. The obvious way to definitively falsify Shlomo's missing family's deaths, is to trace them alive after they were supposed to have died. Another would be to gather evidence that proves TII never had gas chambers, so even if the family cannot be traced, they cannot have been gassed at the camp. If the family names were listed on a transport record, of people leaving TII to go to Majdanek, that would falsify they died at the camp. If there was no further record of the family and they remain missing, the claim they were gassed and buried at TII has still been falsified.

Everything about the Holocaust can be subjected to the falsification principle. A claim about a location having a mass grave can be tested with archaeological and geophysical surveys and if nothing is found, as Richard Krege claimed at TII, then mass graves have been falsified. If the 2011 geophysical survey had also reported finding no pits, especially in the parts of the camp witnesses said pits had been dug to bury the corpses, mass graves would have been falsified.

The ultimate Holocaust falsification, would be evidence of millions of Jews still alive, in camps and ghettos in 1944. That would mean the millions of Jews arrested 1939-44, cannot have been murdered. Gathering evidence of camp and ghetto populations in 1944, would not fall foul of any denial law or policy. Historians have continued to investigate the camps and ghettos, such that there is now evidence of many more than was initially believed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna50662244

"More Nazi-era camps, ghettos uncovered across Europe
Researchers at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum have catalogued some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler's reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945."

I remember that news, and Fritz Berg claiming that to be evidence of millions of Jews still alive. Superficially, it does look like evidence the Holocaust did not include millions being murdered, as 42,500 camp and ghettos could accommodate millions, as each place would only need to take 141 people, using the 6 million death toll.

There is no scenario that you can give me, about the Holocaust, that I cannot explain to you how to gather evidence, that would falsify it.

[HansHill]

You're so full of sh*t Nessie.

Here's an example; diesel exhaust fiasco. The claimed diesel exhaust murder weapon is falsifiable on technical grounds despite this being """""evidenced""""".

Instead of taking the rational step of discarding the claims as fabricated and everyone involved with the fabricated claims as a blatant liar or at best incompetent, you simply shift the murder weapon to a different type of gas, even though the technical arguments that come bundled along with the fuel type still apply to petroleum.

"B-b-but i'm the best falsifier in the world" - No you're not, you don't understand what you are talking about and are clearly out of your depth on practically everything you touch.

[Nessie]

You're so full of sh*t Nessie.

Here's an example; diesel exhaust fiasco. The claimed diesel exhaust murder weapon is falsifiable on technical grounds despite this being """""evidenced""""".

Instead of taking the rational step of discarding the claims as fabricated and everyone involved with the fabricated claims as a blatant liar or at best incompetent, you simply shift the murder weapon to a different type of gas, even though the technical arguments that come bundled along with the fuel type still apply to petroleum.

"B-b-but i'm the best falsifier in the world" - No you're not, you don't understand what you are talking about and are clearly out of your depth on practically everything you touch.

The diesel claim is indeed falsifiable on technical grounds. It is also falsifiable by the evidence of eyewitnesses, such as Erich Fuchs, who worked on the engines and knew about them, who said they were petrol. Recognising what was eyewitness description and what was not, is key.

Your use of "technical arguments" to try to falsify the gassing narrative, is a fail, because it is logically and evidentially flawed. It is not rational to discard all the eyewitness evidence about diesel, as lies, since it is entirely possible that the witness made a mistake. There is evidence a diesel engine was used as a generator for the camp, so a witness may not unreasonably think that diesel was also used for the gas chamber engine. Kurt Gerstein either did not see the gas chamber engine, or he saw it and thought it was diesel, or he got it mixed up with the camp generator, when he described a gassing.

Erich Fuchs eyewitness evidence, falsifies Kurt Gerstein's either hearsay or mistaken evidence. Fuchs was camp staff, who worked on the engines at two camps, whereas Gerstein was a visitor to one camp, making Fuchs description more reliable and accurate.

[HansHill]

Congratulations, you don't understand the argument. Surprise surprise.

[Stubble]

Congratulations, you don't understand the argument. Surprise surprise.

Catch me up, which verse of the thunderstruck tract are we on here? Is this the 'if that didn't work, they pretended not to understand' part of the conversation that is a circle?

[Nessie]

Congratulations, you don't understand the argument. Surprise surprise.

I do understand it and it is wrong. Your argument is that the use of diesel at the gas chambers is falsifiable on technical grounds, even though there is witness evidence of diesel being used. You then state that means it is rational to discard that evidence. I said in the OP, that "Pretty much every single eyewitness to gassings and shootings can be partially falsified, as it is likely they at least made mistakes, when recalling what they saw."

That is why it is not rational to discard Kurt Gerstein's evidence. It is obviously not rational to discard Erich Fuchs, who states petrol was used. That is the "shift" you are referring to, which is sensible, since Fuchs is a more reliable and accurate eyewitness.

You then argue that there are also technical arguments to do with the use of petrol. I did not go into that in any detail, because I want to stay on topic, but I touched on it by pointing out that type of argument is a logical and evidential fail.

To falsify the use of petrol engined gas chambers, you cannot merely argue it was not possible to construct a functioning gas chamber, as described by the witnesses. That is because it was well within German engineering and design capability to design such chambers and witness descriptions likely contain errors. If you ask someone to describe how a car works and they come up with all sorts of incorrect claims, that does not falsify the existence of cars. To falsify gas chambers, you need evidence such as SS camp staff, who deny that the camp had gas chambers, or documents recording mass transports back out of the camp.

[HansHill]

Nessie: What are some of the technical argument against pumping diesel exhaust into a finite enclosure? There are many. I'll give a couple of hints; the first rhymes with "shmair pressure". The second hint rhymes with "shmequilibrium".

I'll wait. Good luck!

[HansHill]

Congratulations, you don't understand the argument. Surprise surprise.

Catch me up, which verse of the thunderstruck tract are we on here? Is this the 'if that didn't work, they pretended not to understand' part of the conversation that is a circle?

I think Nessie's logic needed a separate chapter in MK No way Uncle A could have foreseen this.

[Stubble]

Congratulations, you don't understand the argument. Surprise surprise.

Catch me up, which verse of the thunderstruck tract are we on here? Is this the 'if that didn't work, they pretended not to understand' part of the conversation that is a circle?

I think Nessie's logic needed a separate chapter in MK No way Uncle A could have foreseen this.

[Callafangers]

Nessie fails to understand that none of the things he claims he can show as 'falsifiable' actually are. I will again share a distilled version of Popper's principle applied to historiography, here:

"If historical claims are not testable and potentially falsifiable if false via comprehensive openness to pertinent severe tests (with unbiased evidence), they aren't robust or scientific—they're conjecture, myth, or pseudohistory."

If we take the claim:

"Half a million Jews were buried under Treblinka during WW2."

Then for this claim to be falsifiable, we need to first consider it false ("Half a million Jews were not buried under Treblinka during WW2"), then determine how/whether it is possible to conclusively prove it as such (i.e. as false).

Nessie: since you're currently accepting that half a million Jews were NOT buried under Treblinka during WW2, tell us how exactly you will prove this being the case.

[Stubble]

Jesus Mary and Joseph, did nessie defend Gerstein?

I, I'm not sure where to even start skinning that cat. It is like that Far Side where the dog catches the car and flips is over and says 'Now what do I do with it'.

I mean, where do you start.

Gerstein's statement is, false. F-A-L-S-E.

[Nessie]

Nessie fails to understand that none of the things he claims he can show as 'falsifiable' actually are. I will again share a distilled version of Popper's principle applied to historiography, here:

"If historical claims are not testable and potentially falsifiable if false via comprehensive openness to pertinent severe tests (with unbiased evidence), they aren't robust or scientific—they're conjecture, myth, or pseudohistory."

If we take the claim:

"Half a million Jews were buried under Treblinka during WW2."

Then for this claim to be falsifiable, we need to first consider it false ("Half a million Jews were not buried under Treblinka during WW2"), then determine how/whether it is possible to conclusively prove it as such (i.e. as false).

Nessie: since you're currently accepting that half a million Jews were NOT buried under Treblinka during WW2, tell us how exactly you will prove this being the case.

First, describe what the severe, unbiased, robust scientific tests to establish what, if anything is buried at TII, are. The answer is excavations and geophysical surveys. Those tests apply whether one approaches the issue believing or disbelieving that hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried there, or not. I doubt that you can come up with any other form of testing to establish what, or if people were buried there, so those are the tests to falsify any claim made about burials or a lack thereof.

If such archaeological and geophysical surveys find large areas of buried remains and a series of burial pits, then a claim there were no mass burials has been falsified. If those surveys find large areas of undisturbed ground and no burial pits, then a claim of mass burials has been falsified.

The issue is, as I said in the OP, where "results are disputed". You dispute the findings by those who have surveyed TII, who are convinced they have found enough disturbed ground and human remains to prove the claim hundreds of thousands were buried there. What you cannot do, is falsify those results, by producing results that prove large areas of undisturbed ground and no burial pits.

In effect, archaeologists do a better job of falsifying your claim of no mass burials, than you do of falsifying their claim of mass burials. They produce evidence you dispute, you produce no evidence. The archaeologists are also supported by evidence from eyewitnesses, documents and circumstances around the operation of TII as a camp.